The lack of traffic discipline in Brazil, and the consequent impunity of the drivers, has lasted for many years, until the enactment, in Sep. 23, 1997, of Law No. 9,503, known as the National Transit Code, hereinafter referred to as the CTB. Prior to the existence of the CTB the figures relative to deaths caused by traffic accidents and automobile crashes were alarming, and Brazil was one of the leading countries in terms of percentage of traffic-related casualties.
Statistics provided by the Federal Road Police evidence that subsequently to the enactment of the CTB the number of casualties resulting from traffic accidents was not significantly reduced, corresponding to a mere 0.7% decrease, serving to demonstrate that the supervising methods produce little effect in educating our Country's drivers.
Brazil has a “casualty index” well above that of developed countries. That index measures the number of deaths for each group of 10,000 vehicles and is used worldwide to provide an indication of violence in traffic. In 1997, the casualty index in Brazil was 8.00. Countries like Japan, Italy, the USA, France, Germany and Austria have indexes ranging from 1.50 to 4.00.
Unfortunately, both facts and statistics evidence that the traffic behavior of the Brazilians has not changed much since the enactment of the CTB. The administrative and judicial jurisprudence points to the fact that there is no great result to be achieved by punishment without education. Therefore, at this time, the major objective and also the major challenge of the CTB is to educate the Brazilian population.
With the CTB, in addition to severe penalties for infractions, there was a change in the policies relative to control and supervision of traffic in our Country, putting an end to a long period of existence of an inefficient supervision system. Each traffic violation started to be counted in terms of points, whereby upon accumulating 20 points the driver loses his driving license.
The CTB brought about a positive aspect, where it established limits to the rights and the duties of the Public Authority, aiming at making supervision more effective. In the past, it was not precisely established which entity was actually in charge of controlling and supervising the traffic in the streets and roads of Brazil, and in many instances there occurred confusing actions involving the Municipalities, the States and the Federal Union, leading to inapplicability of the transit laws.
As a consequence of such lack of delimitation, members of the families of traffic accident victims usually brought legal suits against the Municipal authorities, attributing thereto the figure of the passive pole (defendant) in the suit, but also indicating the State and the Union as co-responsible parties due to the omission of signaling and/or supervision in place.
The slowness of the Brazilian judicial system worsened this situation of absence of definition of liability of the public entities involved. In some cases, after 20 years, the victim's family members still await a decision determining at which level, Municipal, State or Federal, actually lays the liability for payment of an indemnity.
The CTB determined that, as a general rule, the State is responsible for supervising the compliance of vehicles with the regulations applicable thereto (IPVA), and the Municipality is in charge of supervising the circulation of the fleet, covering the events of speed violations, failure to obey red lights, irregular parking, and collecting the revenue derived from the fines applied in connection with the previously cited infractions, and using such revenue to expand and improve the signage system and the supervision of urban thoroughfares.
Due to the reduced staff of police officers and supervisors, the municipal traffic engineering companies, together with the Transit Departments—DETRANS, started to use the so-called electronic monitoring or supervision, using traffic monitoring and control equipment to detect infractions.
The main purpose of such equipment consists in the detection of traffic violations related to excessive speed and disregard of red lights, aiming to decrease the number of accidents and to discipline the vehicle drivers. For this motive, the locations for installation of electronic supervision equipment are selected based on a high rate of accidents. Either by mere coincidence or otherwise, such equipment was installed in the main thoroughfares of the city, consequently those having the highest vehicle circulation rates, but one can not affirm which of the factors actually served to determine the choice of the locations.
Electronic monitoring is recent in Brazil, and has been in use for less than 10 years. However, in Europe and in the United States this resource has been in use for almost 30 years. Much to our surprise, in this short time span, Brazil already stands in the first ranks in terms of use of electronic monitoring machines.
It is known that an increase in the numbers of public officials is not the most simple of tasks, and it is frequently hindered by legal, bureaucratic and financial difficulties. The Mayor's office budget allowance limits the expenses with payroll to 60% (sixty percent). Since almost all the municipalities have already reached this percentage, and in some cases have actually exceeded the same, they therefore became unable to hire new supervising agents. The supervision using electronic equipment came to fill in this gap, having become an alternative to the municipalities, both under an administrative point of view, and in financial terms.
According to the CET RIO, for example, the electronic supervision points are preceded by sign plates, intended to alert the users to comply with the legislation and legal rules. This fact does not occur in practice (or if it occurs, it is not very effective), and for this reason, along these almost four years of enforcement of the Code, those machines came to be nicknamed “slot machines” by drivers finding themselves victims of unfair treatment.
In a paper published in Traffic Safety, Graham provides an overview of the controversy between those members of the community that are favorable to the detectors and those that oppose the same. In this study, Graham provides scientific evidence regarding the difficulty to educate drivers by using electronic detectors. (Graham, S. Police battle speeders. Traffic Safety, November/December 1996, pp. 8–12).
Among the points that make it difficult to educate the driver is the time lapse between the issuance of the fine and the act of infringement itself, causing little or no effect in terms of changing the traffic behavior.
The electronic supervision devices may generate a great number of citations, with a small expense incurred with personnel in loco. The use of these devices causes a concern regarding traffic safety, such concern (Hoff, 1997) being centered upon the lack of capacity of the officer to decide on whether to issue a citation, the delay between the event and the citation preventing the defendant to have an adequate opportunity to submit a possibly successful defense. In many cases, these citations generate consequences of small import, for example fines of small value, rendering it impractical to accept the expenses involved in mounting a defense. (Hoff, C. Legal issues surrounding photo-radar speed enforcement. WesternITE, July–August 1997, 51(4), pp. 1–3,9).
The primary purpose when punishing a traffic violation consists in educating the driver that committed the violation, however the distance between the event and the receipt of the fine causes this objective to remain unfulfilled in the majority of instances, since the driver no longer remembers the infraction that he or she did commit.
The great number of fines issued increases the time distance between the event and the receipt of the fine. With the present state of the art, there shall occur an even greater increase of this time lapse, that in many cases will entail the actual disregard thereof, since the traffic violation citations must be delivered to the drivers within a term of 30 (thirty) days.
In countries like Brazil, where people persistently try to dodge the law using the famous Brazilian “jeitinho” (ruse), the greater the lapse of time between the infraction and the receipt of the fine, the greater will be the possibility of appearance of “gangs” specializing in withdrawing from the system fines that have not as yet been issued, where in general such schemes originate at the very agency that is in charge of issuing the fine.
Studies conducted concerning electronic supervision were revised and synthesized by Blackburn and Gilbert (1995), where an analysis was made in respect of the electronic supervision programs of the United States, Australia, Canada and Europe. The major conclusion derived from these studies is based on the inefficiency of these types of equipment, having in view that they might reduce speeding, accidents or even some injustices. On the other hand, the extension of the benefits does not occur in the same proportion, and is essentially dependent upon the details of the situations that generated the infractions. These studies basically reexamined the history of use of electronic supervision, primarily in the United States, where there were analyzed and taken into consideration the legal and technical requisites for the use of this equipment, and a review was conducted in respect of the problems encountered in the use thereof. (Blackburn, R. R., and Gilbert, G. T. Photographic enforcement of traffic laws. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice no. 219, 1995. Transportation Research Board, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 200418, USA).
The state of the art shows that it does not suffice to have latest-generation equipment, as is the case in the United States, but it is also necessary to make it function in an effective and fair manner. Technology is intended to serve mankind, and we should not become subservient to this equipment without an interference of human analysis in this chain: vehicle, infraction, fine.
Although the use of this type of equipment in Brazil is more recent than in the countries cited above, Brazil does not derive a privilege therefrom, as the problems disclosed in these studies regarding electronic supervision have been occurring in our Country in a systematic fashion. Therefore, there should be questioned the equipment used to date and the forms of supervision provided thereby.
There exist at present two types of electronic supervision equipment. The first is the fixed camera to register disregard of red stoplights. This equipment is installed on traffic lights and is coupled to sensors installed only under the retention strip. When the light turns red the equipment is activated and records the vehicles that cross the red light, by means of two photographs. The first is taken in the instant when the vehicle crosses the sensor and after an interval between 0.5 and 10 seconds, the second photograph determines whether the vehicle actually ignored the red light or remained stationary over the strip.
The second is the portable or fixed radar for speed measurement. This equipment measures the speed of the vehicles by means of a precise focusing of a radar beam that operates using various forms of detection, one of which is based on the Doppler principle (waves emitted at speeds near the speed of light), monitoring up to three lanes. In the instant when a vehicle crosses the radar beam at a speed above the permitted speed, a photograph is taken including the date, hour, location code, allowed speed and the speed of the infractor.
The forms of speed measurement used in the electronic monitoring and supervision equipment are:                1) Microwave radar—there are two types of microwave detectors, the first transmits electromagnetic energy in a constant frequency, in order to measure the vehicle speed, using the Doppler principle, and the second type of microwave radar transmits a memorized waveform, also called a modulated frequency wave, which varies the transmitted frequency continuously with time, allowing to detect stationary vehicles.        2) Passive infrared detector—supplies the data relating to the passage and the presence of the vehicle, but not the speed.        3) Active infrared detector—operates in a fashion similar to the microwave detector. A laser is used to transmit energy close to the infrared spectrum (approximately 0.9 micrometers in length) whereof a portion is reflected back to the receptor of the detector by a vehicle that is within the field of vision of the instrument. It supplies data on the passage, presence and speed of the vehicle.        4) Ultrasonic detectors—the ultrasonic detectors were created to receive the data relative to Doppler effect and range.        5) Passive acoustic detectors—these devices produce acoustic energy or an audible sound. When a vehicle crosses the detection zone, the signal processing algorithm detects an increase of the sound allowing a reduction of the speed.        6) Magnetic detector.        7) Video image processor—the processor identifies vehicles and parameters associated with traffic flow by means of an analysis of images supplied by video cameras. Using specific computing structures, the images are digitized and transmitted by means of a series of algorithms that identify changes in the background image.        
Following the installation of the electronic supervision equipment, there occurred a great increase in the number of fines issued. We cite, for example, the case of the Transit Department (DETRAN) of the State of Rio de Janeiro, which during the year 2000 issued a total 1,868,064 fines, whereof 870,573 were issued in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The most frequent infractions are: speed up to 20% in excess of the maximum allowed speed —831,824 fines; violation of red light or mandatory stop—204,444 fines; and speed 20% above the maximum allowed speed—193,697 fines.
The indiscriminate use without comparative antecedents has been generating anachronic or anomalous results. For example, vast percentages, or even the entire fleet of a city is fined during the course of one year, without there occurring the counterpart of a decrease in accidents and fatalities, a sine qua non condition to justify the use of such equipment.
An atypical fact occurred in the municipality of Belém (State of Pará). Following the installation of the municipality's electronic traffic supervision and control system, the entire fleet of the municipality was fined, resulting in a popular commotion against the electronic supervision.
The current state of the art does not generate irrefutable evidence of the detected infractions, and in the majority of the cases it generates unfair, or even irrelevant evidence. This comes as a consequence of the waiving of supervision performed by human beings, in favor of the option for supervision performed by an electronic equipment that merely records the act of infringement in a photograph. Such equipment does not provide a record of the events that preceded the act of infringement or that occurred thereafter, where if such events could be properly analyzed, they might constitute irrefutable evidence to justify the fact as not constituting an actual infraction.
When a fixed radar is used for measurement and supervision of excessive speed, there is noted that in the majority of times the driver driving the vehicle at a speed above that which is allowed as a limit, proceeds to brake or to reduce his speed a few meters before passing by the radar, and a few instants after having passed by the radar, resumes his driving at the prior excessive speed.
Furthermore, upon analyzing the data, it is noted that this presently used equipment, in most cases, only imposes penalties on drivers that exceed the speed limit due to being but slightly above the established speed limit when passing by the radar. If the average speed of the driver could be measured, that same infraction might possibly be disregarded.
Thus, the state of the art provided by the cited existing equipment is not able to prevent excesses from the part of the municipal administration officials, or unfair situations, such as those described above.
With all these shortcomings implemented by the state of the art, already duly identified, other equipment was devised in an attempt to find solutions for the problems, but such equipment also evidences shortcomings of its own.
A system for supervision of compliance with traffic regulations, that is the object of U.S. Pat. No. 6,121,898, consists in two or more working units and at least one host computer connected through network devices. The working units are fixed separately at a certain distance and each unit includes a plate reading device. The host computer receives inputs from two units that are not necessarily working units adjacent to one another, including identification of indicia, e.g. identification of the license plates of the vehicles that have passed. The working unit and the host computer cooperate to compute the average speed of a vehicle passing between the two units, by means of the use of inputs of: (a) minimum travel time to cover distances between working units, which latter transmit compared indicia, (b) sending of speed limit data between two working units, whereto is transmitted information comparing vehicle license plates, and (c) time lapse between the transmission of the comparison of identification of indicia to the host computer. Optionally, after a predetermined time lapse has expired, the information relative to a vehicle not corresponding to a violation is deleted.
The equipment described above needs to include at least two working units in order to be able to identify the indicia, registers only the moment of the infraction, operates solely with video cameras, no alternative forms for generating images being disclosed. After a predetermined period of time, the images that fail to correspond to a violation are deleted. However, the system does not disclose which is the party or entity that is responsible for this analysis. It does not make it possible to record events having occurred prior to the infraction or after the same.
A system for monitoring objects or for monitoring vehicles, that constitutes the object of U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,161, includes a connection camera for monitoring the movement of an object, determining a time for acquisition of an image, in order that the image of an object be acquired in a predetermined time. The system includes a camera that is able to monitor objects and images of processed circuits, sensitive to the camera, which is also able to detect the movement of a predetermined object, from among other static and moving objects. The information identifying the object may be automatically extracted from the acquired image. The system is particularly adjusted for large-scale monitoring and discrimination of vehicles, from among other vehicles on a highway with multiple lanes and acquires high-resolution images of large vehicles at a predetermined acquisition point. The data and information relative to the acquired images, by means of a plurality of connected cameras, may be sent over a digital communications network to the central processing system, which may extract the identification data of the vehicle, as well as details of the vehicles' license plates and obtain information between the connections, regarding a vehicle in movement.
The system given as an example above is primarily intended for the control and monitoring of the fleet of vehicles, it is not intended to record images of traffic violations, and functions solely by using cameras.
The traffic monitoring system that constitutes the object of U.S. Pat. No. 5,935,190 has a common enclosure for a Doppler transceiver radar, a video camera and a digital computer for processing the Doppler signal. The system also includes a VCR, a high-speed photographic camera, and a laptop computer for downloading control settings, originating from a program stored in a floppy disk or a memory card, to be sent to the digital computer. The digital computer performs an initial self-test by means of input of a calibration signal in one place. The modem of the radar generates a two-channel Doppler signal, and the phase between the two channels indicates whether a vehicle is approaching or distancing itself from the radar modem. The two channels are recorded in the left and right audio channels of a VCR. The speeds of the vehicles detected in the system are recorded together with this video signal and are stored in the memory, with the purpose of providing a recording evidencing the traffic conditions when bringing a suit against an infringing driver. The image in the recording may also include a successive series of speed measurements in respect of each vehicle. Although an operator might be able to hear the Doppler signal, it is preferred to have a digital computer activate a sound alert to emit a sound shot when the system detects a vehicle, and emitting a sound when the vehicle exceeds the permitted speed limit.
This system is intended to measure the exact speed of the vehicle when passing by the radar, and does not allow to measure the average speed thereof. Furthermore, this system does not allow to record the event itself only of the moment when the infraction actually occurs. It operates exclusively by means of the Doppler type radar and requires an operator. No records are made of previous and subsequent events.
The vehicle speed monitoring system that constitutes the object of U.S. Pat. No. 5,734,337 consists in a method to determine the speed of the vehicle by using a camera. The method automatically compensates for a certain speed as evident for imperfections due to the position of the camera and the respective vehicle. The invention disclosed in that US patent also includes a method for calibration of a camera to compensate imperfections due to the position of the camera.